One Liberal Wisconsin Judge Rules on Political Preference, Not Law

When Republican Scott Walker ran for governor of Wisconsin in 2010, he promised to cut state spending and work towards reducing the state deficit.  Walker won the election and was sworn into office on January 3, 2011.

From the day he took office, he started working on campaign promises of reducing the deficit and cutting state spending.  Among the areas he saw that could save the state was to restrict the collective bargaining powers of state employees.  Unions historically fight for higher wages and more benefits, all of which becomes extremely costly for a state with a deficit budget.

Walker and his GOP allies introduced legislation that would remove or restrict a great deal of the collective bargaining powers of state employees.  As you can well imagine, the unions and liberal Democrats, (one in the same, really), launched a statewide drive to defeat the bill, but they were not successful and the bill was passed and signed into law.

The union Democrats filed a lawsuit claiming the bill was unconstitutional.  A Dane County judge agreed and struck down the new law.  Walker appealed to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court who ruled the bill was legal and overturned the Dane County judge’s decision.

One thing you can say about liberal Democrats is that they don’t give up easily.  Since the state high court declared the law constitutional, they launched an effort to recall Gov. Walker and remove him from office.  The Dems launched a huge anti-Walker campaign with a number of very nasty attack ads which is a typical ploy for liberals.  If you can’t beat them, smear them.

The recall went to a statewide election which Walker won.  The majority of the people believed he was doing the right thing and voted to keep him in office.  Once again the union Democrats were defeated and had to lick their wounds, but they were still not done fighting.

Another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state law restricting collective bargaining by state employees was filed in Dane County.  Dane County encompasses the state capital of Madison and has a population of just under 500,000.

Last Friday, Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law is unconstitutional and he struck it down and once again, the union Dems are dancing in the streets of Madison.

However, Cullen Werwie, spokesman for Gov. Walker, says they are appealing Judge Colas’ decision and are confident that his ruling will be overturned by the State Supreme Court just as it had been the first time.  Gov. Walker issued a statement saying:

"The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5th.  Now, they are ready to move on.  Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."

My first question would be to ask what gives a county judge the authority to overrule the state supreme court?  The Wisconsin State Supreme Court has already ruled that the law was constitutional and overturned a ruling to the contrary from one Dane County judge.  Therefore, there is no real legal reason that Judge Colas ruled against the state supreme court, leaving the only reason for his decision was a personal political motive and nothing to do with law.

Colas has a history of being a liberal activist and seems to be using his bench position to accomplish what no one else has been able to.  If the State Supreme Court again rules the law to be constitutional, Judge Colas should be investigated for ethics violation and making rulings based on personal politics and not on law.

Our system is greatly flawed if one liberal judge can overturn the will of the majority of the people and take legislative powers into his own hands.  But liberal judges have been doing that for years.


  • Screeminmeeme

    ''Our system is greatly flawed if one liberal judge can overturn the will
    of the majority of the people and take legislative powers into his own
    hands. But liberal judges have been doing that for years.''

    Yep......right there at the Supreme Court.
    Roe v Wade.....Eminent domain.......Obamacare.

    The Supremes have certainly been on the side of liberals and legislating from the bench for years. ....the latest of which was the appallingly unjust Obamacare decision which handed Obama arguably the biggest judicial victory in our history.

  • Doodlebug

    And, how is it that on liberal judge can put acting on Wisconsin's voter ID law on hold not having time to get to it, as is my understanding, until after the November election? This has been going on for months and I believe this liberal judge is also in Dane County, WI. This law was to be in affect for the spring elections and we still don't have it decided upon. And, if I remember correctly the Supreme Court said yes that voter ID is legal. The dummicrats had to have photo ID to get into the the dummicrat convention but, it is illegal for voting???? HOW STUPID!! Photo ID is also required for me to return anything I buy for my pet at Pet World. If photo ID is illegal for voting it should be illegal for EVERYTHING and FOR EVERYONE!!!!! Go Scott Walker! A Wisconsinite.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    On da Tagliare's question, the previous challenge didn't involve a 14th Amendment issue, if I recall correctly. This also sets up the case to be appealed past the Wisconsin Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The reasoning here could be similar to that in the controversial but correct Lawrence v. Texas decision, where an action done by one group of consenting adults was punished, but it was legal for other groups of consenting adults.

    The question here is can collective bargaining be revoked for selected state employees but not others? (Indiana, by contrast, restricts it across the board.)

    The will of the people is restrained by the Constitution at both the state and the federal level. If popular will is the sole governing of America or a state, why bother having a Constitution? The COTUS says what laws a state or the feds can enact, and what laws one or the other cannot enact. Judges are not supposed to rule on popularity, but on Constitutionality, and judicial activism isn't limited to Democrats.

    (Other cases of unpopular but correct decisions: Engel v. Vitale, Abingdon v. Schempp, the aforementioned Lawrence case, and Term Limits v. Thornton.)

    • GWjr

      Please cite where the Constitution says what laws a state can enact regarding collective bargaining by state employees.

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

        Equal Protection Clause...a law must apply to all in a group or none in a group, but not to some and not others. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in at some point. A state or the feds can prevent unionization for all employees (as the feds once did) or restrict collective bargaining for all state employees (as Indiana does and Ohio did until a voter referendum overturned that), but Wisconsin's law picks and chooses, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

        I believe that the WI Supreme Court will uphold it, but then the U.S. Supreme Court could go either way on it (I see at least 4 justices agreeing to hear the case).

        • GWjr

          Looks like you might be correct. "
          The law blocks public-employee unions—other than those for police and fire—from collectively bargaining over terms other than wages, and restricts negotiations over pay raises to the increase in inflation."
          So according to this WI would have had to become a Right to Work state in order to get rid of Collective Bargaining as law.
          That's disappointing--appears that WI should have gone the whole way to release the stranglehold of the unions on the rest of its citizens. Hope this will be a lesson to others

        • GWjr

          ...by the way, for those following this, see the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause.

        • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

          Wisconsin would not have to become full-blown right-to-work; it could simply take away collective bargaining from cops and firefighters to stop the case cold. The key here is: other than those for police and fire; it creates an exception.

        • GWjr

          I'm against public employees having collective bargaining rights. However, if we are to follow the Constitution, then why wouldn't the 14th Amendment apply equally to every citizen of a state, whether they worked for the state or not?

        • GWjr

          Adam, still there? Didn't want to blow anyone's mind, but how, if the 14th Amend won't sanction unequal treatment for police/fire vs all other WI state employees, can we say the everyone but state workers have the right to collectively bargain? I understand that this goes against my preferences against collective bargaining for state employees. But fair is fair, is it not? (Unlike so many slippery interpretations of the Constitution used by Progressives to promote their agenda). We need to root those interpretations out and make sure all law conforms to the Constitution, not to some Leftist's stretched interpretation of it. Leaving those "stretchies" in there guarantees that We the People will be the losers every time.

  • TheGizmo51

    Good point. Judges never rule on the law, who do they think they are?

  • djw663

    Colas has a history of being a liberal activist and seems to be using his bench position to accomplish what no one else has been able to.
    This is why Obama cannot be allowed to win and appoint judges to the Supreme Court.

  • antiliberalcryptonite

    All liberals must go. To where, I don't care. Just not here.

  • budman

    Judge Colas needs to be called before the State board who decides the conduct of judges making decisions not based on previous higher court decisions or not following the rule of law. He should be removed from the bench. They also could suspend his license for not following the oath he took when granted a license.
    The Governor has the authority to do this should he desire to do so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.zimmerman.77 Joe Zimmerman

    Just more proof that dumbocrats are stupid and brain dead , the definition of CRAZY is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • danclamage

    Once the state supreme court ruled, it could only go up the ladder to a federal courf, not back down to a county court. The latter ruling should simply be dismissed. It's of no consequence.
    What is crucial however is to block the de facto legal embezzling of taxpayer funds via the fraud of elected democrats colluding with public unions who siphon off money to pay off each other. Now there should be a law for that!

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.hilton.773 Michael Hilton

    The only thing I can say positive about the hard left is that they're persistent as he11. They try to override the wishes of the electorate WHENEVER they don't like the result. An even better example of it is in California and the left's efforts to overturn the will of Californians regarding gay marriage.

    • budman

      The people in California make their own bed when they elect Socialist Democrats like Perlosi and Boxer. Until they get it right, California will continue to be in a bad situation both financially and morally. When you elect a Liberal, you are asking for trouble in your state.

  • Richard Justman

    Judge Colas should be fired for not upholding his sworn duty.

  • ste1021

    These judges are one of the most important reasons why we can't afford any more liberal administrations on any level.

  • hongryhawg

    They do it because we, the people allow it. If a judge is suspected of breaking his or her oath of office, they should be suspended, investigated, impeached, and jailed. To these corrupt POS's, an oath is no more than a campaign promise that is expected to be broken. Instead of whining about what they do, they should pay for their lies and corruption.

  • David S. McQueen

    There's a good reason there are appellate courts and supreme courts: Judge Juan Colas. And he's not the only one. There are, unfortunately, many judges who make decisions based on personal bias regarding a case, not by applying law and precedent. The people who accept those judges' biased rulings are just as bad.

  • MaryLou

    Any judge that sets him/herself up as dictator instead of a judge needs to be impeached.
    They are there to INTERPRET the law, not to make the laws

  • freddie

    The Governor and legislator should not have to follow anything a judge lower than the state supreme court rules on since the court ruled the law was constitutional. Governor Walker needs to tell the judge he is not the Governor, and his ruling is mute.

    Fred